Hassan,
So I take it your answer is a) for these particular hadiths?
Or should I take it that you are undecided, but insist that there was no code present at the origin of Islam, and offer possibilities 1-4 as the preferable alternative?
Remember, you are talking to a True Salafi here, so obviously 4) is right out
Although the implication would be that the stories were made up after Muhammed's death, but before Bukhari and Muslim collected the stories OR that Bukhari himself made them up and had Sufi tendencies (which would explain why he was constantly being driven out from the cities that he preached at, for blasphemy): try putting that on your next youtube clip!
3) is fine: but for me, as a religious person, there is always a Reason behind the Random. And, for me, another name for Reason is Code ...
2) I am unsure how convincing this is. Presumably Bukhari didn't collect half-written stories. What would be the point? But I could imagine a Salafi using such an argument as a defense: "Oh, there is a literal interpretation there somewhere, but only half the story is written down, so only Allah knows the meaning." It's a cop out, though, I think you will agree.
1) This is very much an a) response, as it hinges on Muhammed (and Moses too, assuming your criticism also holds over that bit of the Torah at the end of my post) being sneaky enough to use cryptic sounding poetic conceits in order to get the mass's attention. Well, if this is the case, bravo Muhammed and Moses!
This means there is no value in such a code, it is simply a random vocabulary used to convince people by sounding confusing. But the arguments before were that the attraction of Islam was that it presents a universal, straightforward message to all humankind, devoid of confusion. Telling us clearly what is right (zakaat, brushing with miswaak, growing your beard) from what is wrong (having more than 4 wives, ursury). This is apparently the attraction of Islam: clarity.
To imply 1) is to say that a "fake" or "insincere" code was present in Muhammed's time. Just used to convert people through confusion.
Once you admit the presence of any kind of code (fake or otherwise) within the time of the prophet, then all arguments for and against a 100% literalist Islam get infected by the possibility of code. (Tailor's syndrome is the medical condition.)
But if you admit this, then you have to admit it is an historically authentic activity to investigate this "fake" code to check its consistency with respect to the codes of the Torah and Gospels (fake or otherwise).
What do I mean by "consistency"? I mean, is this "faking" a knowledgeable one or an ignorant cut-and-paste? I have had debates with Christians and Jews who argue that Muhammed cut-and-paste language and terminology from their books, with maybe a limited understanding of the "true" code they had present. E.g., there is an argument that many sayings from the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas (one of those "secret" esoteric books that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches banned) appear in the Quran. Maybe he read these books, understood bits of the code and added it to his text to gain political power.
In my investigation, I have found the code of Muhammed to be perfectly consistent with the codes of the earlier books. The modes of speech are identical, in my view.
Of course, following 1) to its conclusion, the skeptic would say the entire Judao-Christian-Islamic religions are full of mysterious passages to con people. And then we are obviously in disagreement.
But still, following 1) means that you have diverged from those Salafis on your youtube clip, who will fight (to the death, in some cases) the possibility of ANY code being present in the works. Which is to say, you have left their dialectic and must move into a new debate against Islam, based on the idea of a Muhammed who works with code, but to manipulate and bewilder. And at this point, you do get closer to my view, because manipulation and bewilderment are certainly the name of the religious game for me: but obviously I take these as positive, personal things rather than negative, political objectives (and so we diverge again).
Anyone else?
BTW I think it's too bad you turned down Tariq Ramadan -- that would have been an interesting one! Although it might have ended up a sort of replay of this, which I guess most of you have been following:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtO5Zo9grz4(I prefer Ayaan over Ramadan in terms of authenticity.)
Topic: It's Metaphorical!